Cognitive Distortions
Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2022 11:25 am
There are some topics best avoided on Wikipedia unless one has either infinite patience or a particular opinion to defend. Race and intelligence is one of those. And worse than others because you may find yourself rubbing elbows with racists and eugenicists.Jimbo Jambo wrote: ↑Tue Jul 19, 2022 11:25 am"How the culture wars came for Wikipedia’s articles about human intelligence."
rolandpj
This is the problem with giving women too much say in society.
Objectivity disappears behind the personal requirement to feel good.
Well, that’s only 49 percent wong, is one way to look at it.Giraffe Stapler wrote: ↑Tue Jul 19, 2022 4:07 pmThere are some topics best avoided on Wikipedia unless one has either infinite patience or a particular opinion to defend. Race and intelligence is one of those. And worse than others because you may find yourself rubbing elbows with racists and eugenicists.Jimbo Jambo wrote: ↑Tue Jul 19, 2022 11:25 am"How the culture wars came for Wikipedia’s articles about human intelligence."
I can't say I agree with all of the points made, but this piece is well written and worth reading.
That said, it's Quillette, so comments like this are not surprising:rolandpj
This is the problem with giving women too much say in society.
Objectivity disappears behind the personal requirement to feel good.
The pseudonymous authorship which includes grey literature paper production is... intriguing. I have my suspicions about which person may have written this given the particular bent of the arguments made, but I'll leave it to others to suss out what they think.Giraffe Stapler wrote: ↑Tue Jul 19, 2022 4:07 pmThere are some topics best avoided on Wikipedia unless one has either infinite patience or a particular opinion to defend. Race and intelligence is one of those. And worse than others because you may find yourself rubbing elbows with racists and eugenicists.Jimbo Jambo wrote: ↑Tue Jul 19, 2022 11:25 am"How the culture wars came for Wikipedia’s articles about human intelligence."
I can't say I agree with all of the points made, but this piece is well written and worth reading.
I'm going to call Willoughby and her fellow travelers "racists". If you don't like that term, substitute it for whatever other term you would like.eppur si muove wrote: ↑Sat Aug 13, 2022 11:03 amnutritious diets are available at affordable prices to children whatever their background.
A lot of people on twitter are going on to defend her as if she's all above board, but actual comments she has made belies that. She co-authored a mixed book review in 2014 of Nicholas Wade's "A Troublesome Inhertiance". a book in which Wade literally states:
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2 ... fic-racism.Populations that live at high altitudes, like Tibetans, represent another adaptation to extreme environments. The adaptation of Jews to capitalism is another such evolutionary process.”
I'm sure that "racist" is accurate. There's often some class bigotry in the modern eugenicist mindset too.iii wrote: ↑Sat Aug 13, 2022 9:29 pmI'm going to call Willoughby and her fellow travelers "racists". If you don't like that term, substitute it for whatever other term you would like.eppur si muove wrote: ↑Sat Aug 13, 2022 11:03 amnutritious diets are available at affordable prices to children whatever their background.
Largely agree, but I think there are some (un-)interesting wrinkles in the motivations of some of these people.eppur si muove wrote: ↑Sun Aug 14, 2022 5:14 pmThe only reason I can see for seeking to research it is to confirm the researchers' own pre-conceived political ideas. If you're not a racist either of the let;s-keep-those-inferior-types-from-outbreeding-us-or-diluting-our-racial-purity-type or of the patronising -the-poor-dears-will-need-special-help type, then why on earth would hunting for this difference be of any interest?
If it were a Wikipedia account it would be blocked as WP:DUCK (there's the exact same focus on R&I as Willoughby's other work, and Tetrapteryx refers to a hypothetical transition between birds and dinosaurs, and Willoughby's art focuses on prehistoric birds and dinosaurs closely related to birds). It's been active too long (2 years) for it to have been a Joe Job imo. Also, I can't imagine someone paying to subscribe to Quillette for that purpose.Something like 90% of people who edit Wikipedia are male. If you’ve looked at the Wikipedia talk page discussions about this set of problems, the one woman commenting there (Ferahgo the Assassin) has been one of the people objecting to how the academic literature about intelligence is misrepresented.
For a few decades, The United States and several other countries have had laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis or race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. If a person can prove that they were fired for their job because they’re gay or because they’re a Muslim, for example, they can easily sue their past employer over that. But at present, there is no legal protection for people who are fired for expressing the “wrong” viewpoint about topics such as the riots or the Black Lives Matter movement, and over the past few weeks we’ve seen an increasing number of people losing their jobs for that reason.
I’m proposing that citizens of the U.S. and the U.K. should petition congress and parliament to introduce legislation prohibiting viewpoint-based discrimination, in the same way that discrimination based on race, religion, and gender are already illegal in most cases. Does anyone else support this idea?
EDIT: Someone has suggested to me that her long time associate Jonathan Kane (Captain Occam) might be behind this account instead, based on the fact that the same username was used to comment on a 2014 blog post. https://archive.ph/QDvaO and the JSON output of the gravatar of that account gives Jonathan Kane as the real name http://en.gravatar.com/tetrapteryx.jsonI’ve been wondering about how extreme cases like that would be handled, and I’m not sure that I agree. Suppose that somebody is, say, a computer programmer, and after they’ve been on the job for several years it’s discovered that they’re a white supremacist. But their racist beliefs have no effect on their programming ability, nor is there any plausible way these beliefs would diminish the quality of their work. Is it reasonable to fire a person for a reason that has nothing to do with their ability to perform their job?
The way other anti-discrimination laws work is that a person can only be denied a job because of their gender, religion, etc. if it’s a “bona fide qualification” for the job. So for example, being a Roman Catholic is a bona fide qualification for a priesthood in the Roman Catholic church, so it’s legal to deny a person that job because they aren’t catholic, even though denying someone a job for that reason would not be legal for most other jobs. My suggestion is that laws against viewpoint-based discrimination should work in a similar way, so that firing a person for their viewpoints is only legal in cases like that one.
Yes. To clarify, my question is what motivations exist for hobnobbing with the special group of comrades-in-arms who are strident proponents of pointsScotFinnRadish wrote: ↑Sun Aug 14, 2022 6:06 pmThere's plenty of non-racist reasons I can think of to study intelligence, other psychometrics and other traits between population groups.
The bit from the academic-ish paper is interesting in that in challenges two 2015 references comparing male and female scores in different aspects of IQ tests, by citing sources published between 1965 and 1995 and one. Given the Flynn effect and how girls and women were historically discouraged from having academic (or even career) ambitions, then this makes me wonder about how relevant the old data can be to today's situation. Did Kirkegaard use old references because newer ones would have disproved his claims?Hemiauchenia wrote: ↑Sun Aug 14, 2022 7:27 pmOh, and she also apparently approvingly tweeted in response to Emil Kirkegaard, a Nathan Larson-esque race pseudoscientist and white nationalist who has advocated for the legalisation of child pornography, amongst many other terrible things (he was also the guy behind the OK Cupid data scandal).
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Emil_O._W._Kirkegaard
Yes, Tetrapteryx is me. I use that name on Discord also. The name is a reference to a theory about the evolution of birds proposed by William Beebe (T-H-L), which is my most edited Wikipedia article. (In 2011 I raised it from start-class to a GA.)Hemiauchenia wrote: ↑Sun Aug 14, 2022 6:38 pmEDIT: Someone has suggested to me that her long time associate Jonathan Kane (Captain Occam) might be behind this account instead, based on the fact that the same username was used to comment on a 2014 blog post. https://archive.ph/QDvaO and the JSON output of the gravatar of that account gives Jonathan Kane as the real name http://en.gravatar.com/tetrapteryx.json
On the other hand, the validity of Emily's research about genetics and IQ is being defended by Eric Turkheimer, a behavioral geneticist who is strongly opposed to "race research". The attacks against Emily aren't coming from other behavioral geneticists, not even from opponents of "race research" such as him, but mostly from paleoartists who aren't familiar with what it's normal for people with careers in behavioral genetics to study.Let me say this carefully. IQ is a pseudoscientific myth, and the “research” she is involved in directly contributes to inequality and actively harms disadvantaged people.
The paper in question does not do any genetics whatsoever. It merely assumes that if a factor is more highly correlated with a biological parent than with an adoptive parent, the preferred explanation is that the factor has a genetic component. See (a) above.Captain Occam wrote: ↑Mon Aug 15, 2022 9:32 amThe left-leaning parts of society have been headed for a long time towards the conclusion that all research about genetics and IQ is inherently racist, even if race is not mentioned. I would like the people at this forum to understand that this is what's being argued by most of Emily's attackers, so that's where we are now.
There's more to behavioral genetics than just molecular genetic studies. Adoption studies have been one of the standard methods used by behavioral genetics at least since the 1980s. The textbook Behavioral Genetics, which is the main textbook used for college and graduate courses in this field, explains the adoption study method in its sixth chapter.
And this is why you continually fail to convince people of anything. There are obvious confounding variables when it comes to adoption studies, they are well-explained in the literature, and if you refuse to admit that, then there is no use continuing the discussion.Captain Occam wrote: ↑Mon Aug 15, 2022 12:20 pmThere's more to behavioral genetics than just molecular genetic studies. Adoption studies have been one of the standard methods....
I was asking whether you think it's justified for Emily to be attacked over publishing studies that use standard behavioral genetics methods. You've given me an evasive answer as usual, but based on the context I assume this answer means "yes".iii wrote: ↑Mon Aug 15, 2022 6:25 pmAnd this is why you continually fail to convince people of anything. There are obvious confounding variables when it comes to adoption studies, they are well-explained in the literature, and if you refuse to admit that, then there is no use continuing the discussion.
For over a decade, you and Willoughby have dedicated yourselves to this cause. I have to ask, why? What animates you so much about this particular issue? Do you not see how it's a major problem that hereditarian psychology is directly tied to white supremacists and racist cranks? (probably not, because you have approvingly quoted some of them). No other scientific field I am aware of is so tied to racism and nonsense. At least paleontology has standards, its most notorious crank, David Peters, is shunned like a leper.Captain Occam wrote: ↑Mon Aug 15, 2022 7:07 pmI was asking whether you think it's justified for Emily to be attacked over publishing studies that use standard behavioral genetics methods. You've given me an evasive answer as usual, but based on the context I assume this answer means "yes".iii wrote: ↑Mon Aug 15, 2022 6:25 pmAnd this is why you continually fail to convince people of anything. There are obvious confounding variables when it comes to adoption studies, they are well-explained in the literature, and if you refuse to admit that, then there is no use continuing the discussion.
Here's one other question: was discrediting behavioral genetics your goal all along? Most of the recent attacks on "race research", from both you and other people, could more accurately be described as disguised attacks on the the overall fields of behavioral genetics and IQ testing. If your intention was to use the issue of race as a wedge to discredit these entire fields, that was a highly effective strategy, because it meant nobody could defend them without being accused of supporting racism.
So if that was indeed your goal from the start, hats off to you for your clever strategy to discredit two scientific fields.
I can't speak for Emily, but in my case it's a direct consequence of my background as a critic of creationism. (Which is where the name "Captain Occam" comes from, in case you weren't aware of that.)Hemiauchenia wrote: ↑Mon Aug 15, 2022 7:35 pmFor over a decade, you and Willoughby have dedicated yourselves to this cause. I have to ask, why? What animates you so much about this particular issue? Do you not see how it's a major problem that hereditarian psychology is directly tied to white supremacists and racist cranks? (probably not, because you have approvingly quoted some of them). No other scientific field I am aware of is so tied to racism and nonsense. At least paleontology has standards, its most notorious crank, David Peters, is shunned like a leper.
You haven't answered my question. Behavioural genetics and intelligence research is tainted by it's associated with figures like Hans Eysenck (now known to have conducted fraud in his "cancer-prone personality" research) J. Philippe Rushton (who did shoddy research in order to promote his racist beliefs) and Richard Lynn (who conducted biased literature reviews and is an unabashed racist). The latter two which are associated with American white nationalist groups like American Renaissance and VDARE. https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate ... pe-rushton https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate ... chard-lynn This just wasn't historical. Lynn was on the EDITORIAL BOARD of "Intelligence", the flagship journal of International Society for Intelligence Research (of which Willoughby is a member of the board) as recently as 2018. https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2 ... -seriously. The truth is, the ISIR (who has eugenecist Francis Galton as their twitter icon https://mobile.twitter.com/isironline) has never seriously repudiated their links to racism and white nationalism.Captain Occam wrote: ↑Mon Aug 15, 2022 8:56 pmI also should clarify that when I refer to behavioral genetics, I'm not using that as a euphemism for race research; I just mean behavioral genetics and intelligence research in general. However, a lot of what are presented as attacks on "race research" are really attacks on the entire fields of behavioral genetics or intelligence research, as is currently happening in Emily's case. When those fields are attacked, I'm motivated to defend them for the same reason that I've been motivated in the past to defend evolutionary biology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =849740376I haven't yet addressed my actions in support of Emil Kirkegaard (user:Deleet), and since that was the subject of Bishonen's comment that User:Cullen328 is referencing there, I'd like to address it now. Deleet has gone into a fair amount of detail about his political views, and I'm 100% sure he isn't actually a Neo-Nazi. He apparently is a left-leaning centrist: However, he also loves to provoke people on social media, and he seems to enjoy how others react to his making those sorts of Nazi-related references. (Incidentally, I've complained to him about this, not because I think these sorts of jokes reflect his actual beliefs but because of how they create problems for others who interact with him.)
Here is the reason that I think Emil is a valuable editor: he is, at this point in time, the only person editing articles related to human intelligence who studies the topic professionally. Aside from what he's written for his own self-published journals, he has authored two papers on the topic in Intelligence, the field's most prominent journal, [5] three presentations for the International Society for Intelligence Research (I'm not sure how to link to those), and 15 papers in The Winnower. I think this sort of thing matters a lot. On any highly technical topic, the quality of Wikipedia's articles tends to depend on the depth of knowledge of the people who edit them.
This is a straw man-argument. Nobody suggests that someone with a profound intellectual disability has the same cognitive abilities as the average person, nor do many people seriously suggest that "all humans are born with the same abilities". When you state "having to discard cherished ideas about the achievability of total social equality". What is that supposed to mean? People's life chances are decided a lot the wealth and social connections that the families they are brought up into have. Are you saying that social inequality of opportunity is unimportant relative to cognitive ability, which is also heavily influenced by wealth inequality during childhood? Is this supposed to be a dog whistle against affirmitive action or something?In modern society there's a similar social pressure to believe that all humans are born with the same abilities, and accepting that we aren't means having to discard some cherished ideas about the achievability of total social equality. (I'm referring here to social inequality in general, not race.)
I agree that much of Prehistorica's criticism in the twitter post was off-base, especially the claim that IQ is a "pseudoscientifc myth", but you and WIlloughby have long been linked to the "HBD" community, independent of her actual academic work. There's a saying in English "If you lie down with dogs, you get fleas". Paleontology enthusiasts generally have higher standards than psychologists, it seems. She doesn't deserve to be harassed, obviously, but that's the twitter mob mentality for you.Let me ask you the same question I asked earlier in this thread, but without getting much of an answer: do you not see anything wrong with attacking a person for studying behavioral genetics in the same way that it's studied by dozens of universities all over the world, and the same way it's presented in the vast majority of psychology textbooks? If you want to personally believe that behavioral genetics is "divorced from reality" (to use a quote from the 2014 argument), believe it if you want. But that doesn't mean you have the moral authority to say that when a person studies the topic in a manner consistent with these universities and textbook publisher, she should be attacked for it and made miserable.
The view that all humans are born with the same abilities isn't a strawman. Leon Kamin has argued that "there exist no data which should lead a prudent man to accept the hypothesis that IQ test scores are in any degree heritable", and more recently Ken Richardson and Oliver James have also argued that human ability differences are determined 100% by the environment. Here is a quote from Stuart Ritchie's review of James' book Not in Your Genes:Hemiauchenia wrote: ↑Tue Aug 16, 2022 1:55 amThis is a straw man-argument. Nobody suggests that someone with a profound intellectual disability has the same cognitive abilities as the average person, nor do many people seriously suggest that "all humans are born with the same abilities".
In reviews of his brilliant 2002 book The Blank Slate, which railed against the ‘modern denial of human nature’, Steven Pinker was accused of erecting a straw man. Nobody actually believes, scoffed the critics, that children are born with brains of soft clay, their mental makeup unaffected by genes and infinitely mouldable by their parents. Everyone acknowledges both genes and environments are important in psychological development. Don’t they? Alas, having read Not In Your Genes, the new book from celebrity psychologist Oliver James, I can confirm that such gene-phobics do exist. James is the straw man made flesh.
No, I'm referring to the hope I've sometimes seen expressed that with enough social interventions and a level playing field, it might be possible to eliminate socio-economic inequality in the United States. Maybe doing that would be possible under communism, but total socio-economic equality is not achievable in a capitalist society, because even if no one received any advantages based on wealth or family connections, inborn differences in ability would still exist. I think programs to reduce socio-economic inequalities are worthwhile, but we have to be realistic about what's possible.Hemiauchenia wrote: ↑Tue Aug 16, 2022 1:55 amAre you saying that social inequality of opportunity is unimportant relative to cognitive ability, which is also heavily influenced by wealth inequality during childhood? Is this supposed to be a dog whistle against affirmitive action or something?
I think part of the reason for this difference is that Osborn and Cope's pro-eugenics writings have zero relevance to modern paleontology, so paleontologists can reject and denounce those writings without any possible loss. On other hand it's more complicated in Rushton's case. Rushton's studies finding a correlation between brain volume and IQ have been replicated by less controversial researchers, for example in this study from 2015 and this one from 2019. So in Rushton's case, throwing out his conclusions entirely would risk throwing out some findings that apparently were valid. Rushton only died ten years ago, and it might take another few decades for psychologists to finish separating the wheat from the chaff.Hemiauchenia wrote: ↑Tue Aug 16, 2022 1:55 amyou should be aware of the legacy of racism and eugenics in vertebrate paleontology from figures like Edward Drinker Cope (T-H-L) and Henry Fairfield Osborn (T-H-L) both are of course giants in their field, but their racist legacies have been repudiated by modern scholars. This isn't the case in behavioural genetics/psycometry at all, where some scholars still cite Rushton's racist garbage.
So this is a decade long endeavor of yours. Why do we need to be "realistic?" Are we pouring in a lot of wasted effort in some area? Is this the contention? Describe your fear more fully please.Captain Occam wrote: ↑Tue Aug 16, 2022 3:25 amI think programs to reduce socio-economic inequalities are worthwhile, but we have to be realistic about what's possible.
I only included that sentence in my post because I wanted to make it clear I'm not opposed to social programs to help the poor. I didn't mean to imply that I have any specific set of policy prescriptions.Smultronstället wrote: ↑Tue Aug 16, 2022 3:35 amSo this is a decade long endeavor of yours. Why do we need to be "realistic?" Are we pouring in a lot of wasted effort in some area? Is this the contention? Describe your fear more fully please.Captain Occam wrote: ↑Tue Aug 16, 2022 3:25 amI think programs to reduce socio-economic inequalities are worthwhile, but we have to be realistic about what's possible.
"We have to be realistic," was your phrase. What have you seen that makes you afraid that someone isn't being realistic, and how is that a problem worth devoting any attention to?Captain Occam wrote: ↑Tue Aug 16, 2022 3:49 amI only included that sentence in my post because I wanted to make it clear I'm not opposed to social programs to help the poor. I didn't mean to imply that I have any specific set of policy prescriptions.Smultronstället wrote: ↑Tue Aug 16, 2022 3:35 amSo this is a decade long endeavor of yours. Why do we need to be "realistic?" Are we pouring in a lot of wasted effort in some area? Is this the contention? Describe your fear more fully please.Captain Occam wrote: ↑Tue Aug 16, 2022 3:25 amI think programs to reduce socio-economic inequalities are worthwhile, but we have to be realistic about what's possible.
This is truly some stopped clock stuff though, to quote the man himself:Captain Occam wrote: On other hand it's more complicated in Rushton's case. Rushton's studies finding a correlation between brain volume and IQ have been replicated by less controversial researchers, for example in this study from 2015 and this one from 2019. So in Rushton's case, throwing out his conclusions entirely would risk throwing out some findings that apparently were valid. Rushton only died ten years ago, and it might take another few decades for psychologists to finish separating the wheat from the chaff.
Like, one of Rushton's conclusions was on the that black people have bigger genitals and because of that they had smaller brains and were less intelligent than white people.“Whites have, on average, more neurons and cranial size than blacks… Blacks have an advantage in sport because they have narrower hips — but they have narrower hips because they have smaller brains.”
--J. Philippe Rushton, speaking at the 2000 American Renaissance conference
Yes, yes, but what der Hauptmann Occam is saying is that just because these horrible people with their horrible ideas have done research that just happens to show that their horrible ideas are correct, there's no reason to dismiss that research just because they are horrible people with horrible ideas. It's not like someone with an all-pervasive worldview like White Supremacy would distort or cherrypick results to push their own agenda. They're basically like cancer researchers. Do you deny the validity of e-meters just because you don't like the Church of Scientolgy?Hemiauchenia wrote: ↑Tue Aug 16, 2022 8:32 amThis is truly some stopped clock stuff though, to quote the man himself:
Like, one of Rushton's conclusions was on the that black people have bigger genitals and because of that they had smaller brains and were less intelligent than white people.“Whites have, on average, more neurons and cranial size than blacks… Blacks have an advantage in sport because they have narrower hips — but they have narrower hips because they have smaller brains.”
--J. Philippe Rushton, speaking at the 2000 American Renaissance conference
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate ... pe-rushton
Is this sarcasm? Most of it sounds like it is, but your example of e-meters makes me unsure, because those actually are used in real clinical research.Giraffe Stapler wrote: ↑Tue Aug 16, 2022 4:42 pmYes, yes, but what der Hauptmann Occam is saying is that just because these horrible people with their horrible ideas have done research that just happens to show that their horrible ideas are correct, there's no reason to dismiss that research just because they are horrible people with horrible ideas. It's not like someone with an all-pervasive worldview like White Supremacy would distort or cherrypick results to push their own agenda. They're basically like cancer researchers. Do you deny the validity of e-meters just because you don't like the Church of Scientolgy?
Are they. though?Captain Occam wrote: ↑Tue Aug 16, 2022 4:57 pmIs this sarcasm? Most of it sounds like it is, but your example of e-meters makes me unsure, because those actually are used in real clinical research.
That seems to be the case. This 2022 paper from the Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology describes EDA meters (which is what e-meters are called outside of scientology) as "a technique commonly used in human science". So if your earlier post was sarcasm, your example demonstrates the opposite of what you thought it does.Giraffe Stapler wrote: ↑Tue Aug 16, 2022 5:01 pmAre they. though?Captain Occam wrote: ↑Tue Aug 16, 2022 4:57 pmIs this sarcasm? Most of it sounds like it is, but your example of e-meters makes me unsure, because those actually are used in real clinical research.
So you think they used e-meters to measure the electrodermal response on the subject's face and neck? Interesting.Captain Occam wrote: ↑Tue Aug 16, 2022 5:38 pmThat seems to be the case. This 2022 paper from the Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology describes EDA meters (which is what e-meters are called outside of scientology) as "a technique commonly used in human science". So if your earlier post was sarcasm, your example demonstrates the opposite of what you thought it does.
Is it though?Hemiauchenia wrote: ↑Tue Aug 16, 2022 1:55 amEarlier in this thread you stated:This is a straw man-argument. Nobody suggests that someone with a profound intellectual disability has the same cognitive abilities as the average person, nor do many people seriously suggest that "all humans are born with the same abilities".In modern society there's a similar social pressure to believe that all humans are born with the same abilities, and accepting that we aren't means having to discard some cherished ideas about the achievability of total social equality. (I'm referring here to social inequality in general, not race.)
Here's Joe Biden, in Januarary:So equity, as a concept, says: Recognize that everyone has the same capacity, but in order for them to have equal opportunity to reach that capacity, we must pay attention to this issue of equity if we are to expect and allow people to compete on equal footing. (Applause.)
Grounded in science or not, isn't this sort of rhetoric from prominent political leaders exactly what he's describing?You know, we’ve heard it said, “Talent is equally distributed, but opportunity is not.”
When we invest in infrastructure, we’re really investing in opportunity. These are investments that will build a better America. It sounds like hyperbole, but it’s real.
Only if you begin with the premise that "capacity," "talent," and "ability" are all the same thing.LargelyRecyclable wrote: ↑Wed Aug 17, 2022 3:51 pmGrounded in science or not, isn't this sort of rhetoric from prominent political leaders exactly what he's describing?
They're pretty commonly understood to be synonyms, so I'd say that's a reasonable assumption in this context.Midsize Jake wrote: ↑Wed Aug 17, 2022 9:07 pmOnly if you begin with the premise that "capacity," "talent," and "ability" are all the same thing.
I don't think that's the argument at all, though I did hear a professor state something similar once. It's about population wide opportunities. The premise is there aren't significant differences based on gender, race, or socioeconomic status that should limit achievement.LargelyRecyclable wrote: ↑Wed Aug 17, 2022 3:51 pmIs it though?Hemiauchenia wrote: ↑Tue Aug 16, 2022 1:55 amEarlier in this thread you stated:This is a straw man-argument. Nobody suggests that someone with a profound intellectual disability has the same cognitive abilities as the average person, nor do many people seriously suggest that "all humans are born with the same abilities".In modern society there's a similar social pressure to believe that all humans are born with the same abilities, and accepting that we aren't means having to discard some cherished ideas about the achievability of total social equality. (I'm referring here to social inequality in general, not race.)
It actually seems to be something of a mantra of late, one that is both rhetorical and impacting public policy.
Here's Kamala Harris, last week:
Here's Joe Biden, in Januarary:So equity, as a concept, says: Recognize that everyone has the same capacity, but in order for them to have equal opportunity to reach that capacity, we must pay attention to this issue of equity if we are to expect and allow people to compete on equal footing. (Applause.)
Grounded in science or not, isn't this sort of rhetoric from prominent political leaders exactly what he's describing?You know, we’ve heard it said, “Talent is equally distributed, but opportunity is not.”
When we invest in infrastructure, we’re really investing in opportunity. These are investments that will build a better America. It sounds like hyperbole, but it’s real.
Willoughby's reputation as a researcher was never what was at stake here, it was her reputation in the paleontology community, where the controversy started, and who will still care after the controversy is over. People like Coyne and Dawkins defending her and complaining about "cancel culture" won't undo the serious damage it has done to fans of her paleoart, who are young and heavily queer. Her reputation with them is thoroughly shredded. See this tweet from Darren Naish, a professional paleontologist who has previously positively reviewed books by Willoughby (including the book you co-wrote with her "God's Word or Human Reason?" https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/te ... eationism/) for an example of how clear that is:Captain Occam wrote: ↑Fri Aug 19, 2022 2:23 amhttps://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/stat ... 7808339970
One of the downsides of attacking the entire fields of behavioral genetics and intelligence research is that it results in having intellectual giants such as Richard Dawkins among one's opponents. (I'm not as big a Dawkins fan as a lot of critics of creationism are, but I still recognize he's probably the single most important individual in the anti-creationism community, with the possible exception of Eugenie Scott.)
As the nominator points out, two of the keep votes were from IP editors with few or no other edits. Mr Butterbur (T-C-L), another of the keep votes, looks like a sock of Captain Occam, but I could easily be wrong about that.This article was submitted for deletion in May 2021. The reasons given were that the article fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG. This is clearly the case, since that time no reliable sources have been added. In the old afd there were 10 deletion votes and 7 keep votes, however, 2 of the keep votes were from anonymous IPs with no editing history. I am suspicious about that, I am not sure why the article was kept as "no consensus" but the issues clearly remain. This person is not notable enough for biography article and it is not possible to write a biography about them other than a few lines because independent reliable sources do not exist. Four of the sources cited are the International Society for Intelligence Research that might be the only thing they are actually notable for in regard to proper sourcing but it is debatable if the International Society for Intelligence Research is a reliable source, using it four times seems undue weight.
The other sourcing I find deceptive, for example source 1 Terakado, Kazuo (2017). The Art of the Dinosaur. PIE International. pp. 159–177 is not an independent source but a book which Willoughby contributed her artwork to. Source 11 is a deadlink and doesn't look like a reliable source. Source 12 is just a book she has contributed to. There are no academic reviews of this persons work. As for the article history itself, the article looks like it was created by a sock but even if it wasn't, the self-promotion is obvious as they have edited their own article. It looks like this person is desperate to get Google traffic to their books with a Wikipedia article. As for conflict of interest it must be noted that Captain Occam (Willoughby's partner [1]) who was banned from Wikipedia for promoting racist pseudoscience has also edited the article. I see here conflict of interest, lack of independent reliable sourcing, self-promotion and other violations of Wikipedia policy. I believe the article should be deleted. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:06, 19 August 2022 (UTC)